Verrazano-Narrows Bridge....911 footage

Leifer

Senior Member.
Possibly an old conspiracy, but it has been claimed that the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in the "live" 911 footage from a helicopter was faked, because the background "moves too fast" and the bridge is too large.

I find this debunk rather obscure and I don't expect much rebuttal because it's all about camera lenses and POV (point of view).....but since I made videos about it years ago........it's for the record.

The "suspicious videos" claimed to be faked....


Using a telephoto lense from a helicopter, pointed on the WTC from 5 miles out, and circling around it, will indeed cause a compression of scale on the objects captured on video. Objects in the background will naturally look "large" because of the telescopic image compression.
Some people cannot grasp this fact, or understand it.....because they have no experience with telephoto lenses. They then tend to deny the normal effect.

Here is a video from a 911 conspiracy supporter, but who understands the particular situation....


Here are my old, and nearly feeble attempts to explain the same thing....



Here is a video showing the background compression via lens focal length....



If that's not enough, there are many videos showing helicopters circling around buildings....
Watch the end of this video.......
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
Say you video record a single pine tree.....then circle around it....recording it all the while.......
The background captured will span (track) possibly hundreds of miles of distance, if there are some distant hills in the background.
Now expand it.....circle around the tree - but at night, with stars in the background. As you circle around the tree, the background will span billions of miles, galaxy to galaxy and more.
It's about scale, and the distance of objects behind the tree.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Slightly unrelated, but is a debunking of camera angles and perspective, related to 911 and it's camera placements...
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
It may come down to about 4 probabilities...
1) never received the proper information in the typical required schools...
2) never sought-out to learn that missing information from reputable sources....
3) never had an interest in these fields....
4) supplanted learning by what's found on the social internet, and considers that their syllabus...

It's surprising (to me) to see people's claims of what is factual and what they believe to be "science".
Their "education" is often based on a confirmatory bias.

Like what Mick said....it's not entirely their fault.....they were just never exposed to these ideas, nor had an interest in them, prior to building their beliefs.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It may come down to about 4 probabilities...
1) never received the proper information in the typical required schools...
2) never sought-out to learn that missing information from reputable sources....
3) never had an interest in these fields....
4) supplanted learning by what's found on the social internet, and considers that their syllabus...

It's surprising (to me) to see people's claims of what is factual and what they believe to be "science".
Their "education" is often based on a confirmatory bias.

But again, these things, at least the first three, are representative of the general population.

A reminder of the politeness policy - the focus should be on educating people, not telling them how uneducated they are.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Some people don't. It's not a truther thing.

Of course. Never claimed it was exclusive.

The only difference is that people who are anti-officialdom and suffer government phobia (which most truthers suffer, but other groups suffer as well) tend to discard rational explanations in favour of the "there must be something fishy going on" notion.

So instead of accepting that parallax and perspective can create odd visual effects sometimes they choose the "government must have tampered with the imagery" conclusion instead, probably more than someone who doesn't suffer the same emotional bias.

Although from all years of discussing with truthers this is the first time I've seen this particular claim, so it is definitely an obscure one, sort of like on par with the CGI-planes argument.
 
Last edited:
Top